Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

What if Patton would have gotten his wish?

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 675
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Nov 2005, 21:16
Komsomol
Post 28 Sep 2006, 21:52
Quote:
I agree with you that an invasion would not be realistic in a time when anti-Soviet rhetoric was still practically silenced due to the war alliances, but I doubt that the soldiers would kill their officers if ordered to attack. Soldiering is not a moral profession. You either do what you're told, or face the consequences. I also don't understand where you get your 'more anti-British than anti- Soviet' attitude.


You would be suprised. The US military was infact worried about soldiers mutining if they were sent to fight Japan just after beating Germany. Also in America soldeiring as a profession at the time was niether highly regarded, nor disired as it was in more highly ordered nations. The American people until recently were almost pathalogicly anti standing army, prefering the idea of militias.
"Its the ones who are subject to occupation that ultimately get to decide whether it was benicfial or not".

Myself.
Soviet cogitations: 466
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Jan 2006, 18:25
Komsomol
Post 29 Sep 2006, 00:37
Quote:
The US military was infact worried about soldiers mutining if they were sent to fight Japan just after beating Germany.


After Pearl Harbour, I dont think there would have been any mutining. Plus can you tell me in any war were American soldiers refused to take orders (on a large scale).
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10461
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Aug 2006, 17:42
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
R.I.P.
Post 29 Sep 2006, 06:51
Quote:
After Pearl Harbour, I dont think there would have been any mutining.


not trying to do anything but set a timeline, but VE day was almost 4 years after pearl harbor. so a lot of mentailities changed...
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2880
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Nov 2005, 17:55
Party Bureaucrat
Post 29 Sep 2006, 17:55
I don't think American soldiers would have liked to fight back-to-back wars, especially when it is against a very helpful former ally.

Quote:
I would assume that he would pick up what Germans he could and just keep going.


It is rumored then when Patton's forces liberated Buchenwald, Patton intended to set aside the SS guards at the camp to train them for his future war.
Image

"History is a set of lies agreed upon."
--Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10461
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Aug 2006, 17:42
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
R.I.P.
Post 29 Sep 2006, 20:54
Quote:
Patton intended to set aside the SS guards at the camp to train them for his future war.


Even during De-nazification, patton used many nazis to keep things running in the provisional government, (train operators communication operators and the like)

in the US this wasn't too popular that he seemingly went against (indirect) orders to keep things running smoothly.

his apparent attitude was he was undermanned with qualified people.

it wouldn't surprise me that he'd utilize them for something.
I doubt extremely that these SS guard would have been trained until after the surrender as this would be collaboration.

Patton a proud soldier and well as a good general for the US, would have never trained them for anything while there was a war on as this would have possiblly meant court martial.
Soviet cogitations: 466
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Jan 2006, 18:25
Komsomol
Post 29 Sep 2006, 23:21
Quote:
not trying to do anything but set a timeline, but VE day was almost 4 years after pearl harbor. so a lot of mentailities changed...



Have US citizens changed there minds about the Twin Towers? I don't think so and that was a few years ago.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2880
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Nov 2005, 17:55
Party Bureaucrat
Post 30 Sep 2006, 02:06
Well, comparing the four years after Pearl Harbor to the four years after the September 11 attacks is like comparing apples to oranges. World War II was a major event that directly affected many average citizens, so naturally people's mentalities would change between the beginning and end of a huge dramatic war; in comparison, most average citizens have generally moved on with their lives as normal since 2001.
Image

"History is a set of lies agreed upon."
--Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10785
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Dec 2004, 23:53
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 30 Sep 2006, 05:23
Quote:
not trying to do anything but set a timeline, but VE day was almost 4 years after pearl harbor. so a lot of mentailities changed...


My grandfather (who was the co-pilot in a B-24 in the Pacific), never like the Japanese even after the war. I would guess that belief he kept that until he died.
Image

"By what standard of morality can the violence used by a slave to break his chains be considered the same as the violence of a slave master?" - Walter Rodney
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10461
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Aug 2006, 17:42
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
R.I.P.
Post 01 Oct 2006, 21:53
Quote:
Have US citizens changed there minds about the Twin Towers?

as a majority? no but do you think that the amercian people as a whole are satisfied with the progress made on capturing it's purpitrators?

this is not an equal comparison either.


to bring up another nonrelated comparision, how do you think the Soldiers in Iraq would feel if the same soldiers were sent 10,000 miles somewhere else to fight another war rather than being sent home, do you think they would all be in favor of it or would there be some dissention?

keep in mind, re-ups in the US military is at an all time low (percentagewise) which is why the TV's in the US are flooded with Enlistment commercials.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10785
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Dec 2004, 23:53
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 02 Oct 2006, 02:15
Quote:
do you think that the amercian people as a whole are satisfied with the progress made on capturing it's purpitrators?


Somewhat. The Americans went to Afghanistan and uninstalled the Taliban. They probably won't be able to strike again with such an forceful attack for sometime. There is the problem with Osama bin laden still being at large.

Quote:
how do you think the Soldiers in Iraq would feel if the same soldiers were sent 10,000 miles somewhere else to fight another war rather than being sent home, do you think they would all be in favor of it or would there be some dissention?


Probably would hate it.
Image

"By what standard of morality can the violence used by a slave to break his chains be considered the same as the violence of a slave master?" - Walter Rodney
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10461
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Aug 2006, 17:42
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
R.I.P.
Post 02 Oct 2006, 08:30
Quote:
The Americans went to Afghanistan and uninstalled the Taliban


and Unocal gets their pipeline.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1984459.stm
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/4105/1/32/


Don't forget The taliban was supported in Afghanistan by the US government as late as august 2001

The annual US Government estimate for opium poppy cultivation in Afghanistan was released Nov. 2004 (49): approximately 206,700 hectares of poppy were grown in 2004, representing a 239% increase in production over 2003 estimates.

http://www.ringnebula.com/Oil/Timeline.htm
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10785
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Dec 2004, 23:53
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 02 Oct 2006, 20:13
Heading back to topic...

My point is that the US (on their soil) has been attacked only several times, during the Revolution, War of 1812, "the Mexican American War" (or so says Polk...), Pearl Harbor, the the Aleutians Islands, and 9/11. Americans got all jingoistic about it. And they still are.
Image

"By what standard of morality can the violence used by a slave to break his chains be considered the same as the violence of a slave master?" - Walter Rodney
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10461
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Aug 2006, 17:42
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
R.I.P.
Post 02 Oct 2006, 21:43
Quote:
Pearl Harbor, the the Aleutians Islands,


alaska and hawaii were not states during WWII so would they still be considered US soil?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2880
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Nov 2005, 17:55
Party Bureaucrat
Post 02 Oct 2006, 22:07
They would be have considered US soil in the same way that Okinawa and Guantanamo Bay are considered US soil today.
Image

"History is a set of lies agreed upon."
--Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10785
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Dec 2004, 23:53
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 03 Oct 2006, 12:27
Quote:
alaska and hawaii were not states during WWII so would they still be considered US soil?


hmm I thought they were states before WWII, my bad. But still:

Quote:
Upon purchase, the area was called the Department of Alaska. Between 1884 and 1912 it was called the District of Alaska. Alaska was granted territorial status in 1912.

Wiki

Hawaii

Even if they were considered on US soil, Pearl Harbor had US military presence, and enough Americans died to get America more than pissed off.
Image

"By what standard of morality can the violence used by a slave to break his chains be considered the same as the violence of a slave master?" - Walter Rodney
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 793
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Nov 2005, 08:18
Komsomol
Post 04 Oct 2006, 04:59
Hello, this may be my returning post or it just may be a one off post, I don't know yet.

Soviet land forces at the end of WWII, were no match for anyone. Americans could not, by themselves, attack the Soviet Union from any direction with enough power to push the Soviets back.
Japan would not have sided with anyone due to their traditions, but kept fighting with anyone who was attacking it.
The Americans, at the time of the war, were actually discussing a separate peace with the Germans (behind Hitlers back) to continue fighting the Soviets (if I am not mistaken, I think it was the British who did not like this idea). Should this have occured, the Soviets would have a very hard time advancing, and, nuclear weapons would probably have been developed earlier and to a better standard. Even now, Soviets would still be able to finish off Germany, even though they would have same level of difficulty as in 1943.
Image

"Art belongs to the people!" - V.I. Lenin
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10461
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Aug 2006, 17:42
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
R.I.P.
Post 04 Oct 2006, 05:40
Quote:
The Americans, at the time of the war, were actually discussing a separate peace with the Germans (behind Hitlers back) to continue fighting the Soviets


I'd like to read about that,,, do you have a source?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2880
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Nov 2005, 17:55
Party Bureaucrat
Post 04 Oct 2006, 15:57
Check out Operation Crossword

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Crossword

USA and Germany were discussing a separate peace, but so far I haven't found a source to verify that the peace was to be directed against the Soviets. One interpretation is that the German army in Italy would switch sides and help the Western Allies against the Nazi "southern redoubt" in the Alps.

However, it does make sense that the secret peace would allow the army in Italy to be redeployed on the Eastern Front to further delay the Soviet advance, given that the main US negotiator was commie-hater Allen Dulles.
Image

"History is a set of lies agreed upon."
--Napoleon Bonaparte
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.